Meet the Press:Lapierre vs. Bloomberg

[morfeeis]

watching it now, thought i'd share.

[victor1echo]

I tried to watch but right off the guy talks about losing the opportunity created by sandy hook. Bloomberg says it would be a tragedy if we dont. Sick people i cannot watch. Did not make it thru to Wayne. Thanks for posting.

[glock7]

i saw that yesterday. Bloomberg disgusts me. i almost spit out my coffee when he said he was pro second amendment. he's definitely an evil troll. on the other hand i thought wayne presented his points and was able to counter any attacks by the interviewer. especially since nbc leans quite obviously to the left. universal background check, no thank you. more like universal registration which leads to confiscation. i know there are those who think they won't confiscate....go ahead and cut to the front of the line and turn in your safe queens. send your ammo to me. please and thank you.

[LuvLRBs]

Just watched the whole thing. I used to think WLP was a boring speaker but I was wrong. Bloomberg can't buy America. Chicago ranks last out of 90 cities in enforcing gun laws. Pointing out how false so many of the representations are about AR's, like how they blow bigger holes in people than other guns. He was great. And Bloomberg is just like New Yorkers. They think they are the most sophisticated citizens in the world. That commercial Bloomberg put out shows a bearded guy in a flannel shirt, sitting in a pickup truck in what looks like a rural area. This is Bloomberg's image of a redneck gun owner. The commercial itself is a put down of gun owners as unsophisticated and simple. WLP does a good job of countering, as he doesn't fit the image of a whacko or a redneck.

[SanPedroShooter]

The thing about LaPeirre is he drives people crazy..

Like foam at the mouth, rave at the moon, bat**** off the rails insane.

For that, if no other reason, I like him.

[SanPedroShooter]

And 'Background checks are a huge win' is totally moving the goal posts. That wasnt the tune three months ago.

And we have background checks!

Not one inch.

Just like the AW ban slowed 'gun control' post Sandy Hook (per Adam Winkler) Bloombergs mouthing off will kill background checks too.

To much, to far.

[SanPedroShooter]

Although I would like to see David Keene speak as far as substance. LaPeirre is just inflamatory.

[Stonewalker]

Color me surprised, that was great.

[mjmagee67]

I think WLP did a descent job, he kinda has the angry white man thing down a little too pat. I would like to see Mr. Nior do some of these pressers thought.

[kalimus]

Again with that "40% of people don't do background checks" statistic too.

Also... LOL @ "would you ban the salt shaker?" followed by "we're not banning anything".

[LuvLRBs]

Originally Posted by mjmagee67

I think WLP did a descent job, he kinda has the angry white man thing down a little too pat. I would like to see Mr. Nior do some of these pressers thought.

I dunno. One Katie Couric moment like with Sarah Paling being asked what she reads, and they would have him by the round ones. I think he needs to stick to what he does well and let the old guys who know every press trick hold down the fort.

[gomatty]

I, too, thought WLP did a surprisingly good job on this one.

[morfeeis]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Again with that "40% of people don't do background checks" statistic too.

Also... LOL @ "would you ban the salt shaker?" followed by "we're not banning anything".

If one more reporter doesn't ask why are they bringing up a stat from a poll that was done before the Brady Act went into law i'm going to scream.

[Rossi357]

How does he come up with the" "80% of NRA members support background checks". when they don't have a list of all the members.

[randomBytes]

WLP did pretty well I though.
I do which he'd smack down that stupid 40% BS that that host keeps using.
Especially since when someone else called him on it, he responded that WLP didn't object to it (as if that confirms it).

[penguin0123]

Originally Posted by Rossi357

How does he come up with the" "80% of NRA members support background checks". when they don't have a list of all the members.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by morfeeis

If one more reporter doesn't ask why are they bringing up a stat from a poll that was done before the Brady Act went into law i'm going to scream.

Well the poll they keep referencing was from '97, and what bothers me the most was that it was JUST in the news a couple weeks ago, about how inaccurate that number really is. I can't remember the number, but it was something like only 250 people polled were gun owners, and some of those people that "didn't do a background check" really answered "I don't know if I had one or not".

'94 survey. '97 report.

[sholling]

This is where WLP shines. He knows every media trick and kicks butt.

[Lulfas]

Originally Posted by Rossi357

How does he come up with the" "80% of NRA members support background checks". when they don't have a list of all the members.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_16...ground-checks/

[phrogg111]

I hate the way that Wayne LaPierre talks.

That guy really, really isn't good at public speaking.

See, not once does he mention that arms and ammunition are constitutionally protected, until the other guy asks him about that.

There is a way to change the bill of rights. Crapping on the bill of rights with unconstitutional legislation is NOT that way.

Arms are, by definition, weapons, for assault.

Arms are protected in the hands of "the people" - the only ones with the right to keep and bear arms.

Arms are only constitutionally protected because people that are well-trained, well-disciplined, well-equipped, and well-ARMED are "necessary to the security of a free State".

All of the arms that are "necessary to the security of a free State" are constitutionally protected. This includes AR-15s and 30 round magazines.

Funny how no one quotes the bill of rights when they talk about why arms are constitutionally protected.

[Hoooper]

"would you ban the salt shaker"

thats great most of the time, but Bloomberg WOULD ban the salt shaker, or at least reduce the capacity to 7 grains

[trouble]

I can't stand WLP, but damn was that good! He deserves an honest answer of why NBC News does not cover those stats?

[Maestro Pistolero]

Wayne is hitting his stride. Well done, WLP!

[malfunction]

3:51 Bloomberg almost said we should have the right to carry, corrected himself just in time

[Waffleobill]

Bloomberg: "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

Well Mr. Mayor, please continue to let us know when we are allowed to exercise our freedoms, and when you need to limit our freedoms when in our best interest.

[penguin0123]

Why are people hating WLP again?

WLP needs to bring more numbers to the talk. We've all read the reports. Now bring the numbers onto MSM. And good job poking NBC in the eye.

[morfeeis]

Originally Posted by Waffleobill

Bloomberg: "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

Well Mr. Mayor, please continue to let us know when we are allowed to exercise our freedoms, and when you need to limit our freedoms when in our best interest.

Already making the rounds on facebook....

[jeffrice6]

He did great!!!

[kimber_ss]

They almost had to put Bloomie in a straitjacket when the commentator said the NRA is strong. The dishonesty just exudes from his facial expressions.

[Lulfas]

Originally Posted by Waffleobill

Bloomberg: "I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom."

Well Mr. Mayor, please continue to let us know when we are allowed to exercise our freedoms, and when you need to limit our freedoms when in our best interest.

And yet I'm willing to bet you agree that your right to get drunk ends when you get in a car.

[Bangzoom]

I cant watch this until im ready to have high blood pressure...I hate Bumberg with a passion

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Lulfas

And yet I'm willing to bet you agree that your right to get drunk ends when you get in a car.

Yes, because that is when you become an threat to the liberty of others. Until I am determined to be a threat to others, my rights cannot be infringed.

[morfeeis]

Originally Posted by Lulfas

And yet I'm willing to bet you agree that your right to get drunk ends when you get in a car.

Drinking isn't a right (see Prohibition), nor is driving.

[Lulfas]

Originally Posted by mshill

Yes, because that is when you become an threat to the liberty of others. Until I am determined to be a threat to others, my rights cannot be infringed.

But you agree that government maintains the ability to restrict a right? In this case, for being a threat to someone else's? My entire argument was just that the government DOES maintain some rights to infringe on personal freedoms for the sake of societal rights.

[penguin0123]

Originally Posted by Lulfas

But you agree that government maintains the ability to restrict a right? In this case, for being a threat to someone else's?

"Only because it is a threat", not "in this case". A huge difference.

Originally Posted by Lulfas

My entire argument was just that the government DOES maintain some rights to infringe on personal freedoms for the sake of societal rights.

"Only to preserve the rights of other individuals", not "for the sake of societal rights". Society is an inanimate object or merely a concept (depending on how you look at it) and has no rights. Only an individual has rights. The government is empowered to deprive a murderer of his life/liberty because the murderer infringed upon the right of the victim to live. The government is empowered to deprive a DUI offender of his liberty because the offender infringed upon the right of other individuals to live. The government is NOT empowered to deprive an individual of his liberty to drink because drinking by itself does not infringe upon the rights other individuals (even though it may offend their sensibility).

[Aufdrahtsein]

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I'd like to think that everyone here is down-like-china-town when it comes to keeping arms out of the wrong hands, but I believe Mayor Bloomberg is under the impression that legislature will keep bad-people-from-doing-bad-things; whatever happened to personal responsibility? If someone wants a large coke, then give them one. If people want salt on their food, then let them have it. If people want to smoke, then let them. I think I am more or less baffled by the thought process of, "Since you can't take responsibility for yourself, we'll step in. When you fail to execute proper decision making on any long or short term scale, we'll subsidize you and/or commence with a broad-sweeping legislation that makes it so nobody has a say in the matter."

[Waffleobill]

Originally Posted by Lulfas

And yet I'm willing to bet you agree that your right to get drunk ends when you get in a car.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

And to answer your question, yes. I believe driving while impaired should be a crime.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by Lulfas

But you agree that government maintains the ability to restrict a right? In this case, for being a threat to someone else's? My entire argument was just that the government DOES maintain some rights to infringe on personal freedoms for the sake of societal rights.

I said nothing whatsoever about government in my response. I simply indicated my liberty ends where that of others begins. I do not believe government should be involved in my choice to do anything. I do believe that if/when i choose to encroach on another's liberty, government is the entity that can punish me.

That being said, there are many laws, which I comply with simply because I believe they are in my and my families best interest.

Let me contrast two different laws: seatbelts and child/infant car seats. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt and I get in a car accident my injuries may be a result of my own choice. If I choose not to put my child in a car seat and I get in a car accident, my child's injuries are NOT a result of his/her own choice because I made the choice for them.

The seatbelt law takes my choice and accountability from me, however, the car seat law protects the child from consequences to choices for which they have not made for themselves.

In other words, the laws should only exist to protect another's liberty not to protect me from myself. If I want to drink 64 ounce soda until I get fat and die, I need to be able to have that choice. Just my opinion.

[penguin0123]

Originally Posted by mshill

In other words, the laws should only exist to protect another's liberty not to protect me from myself. If I want to drink 64 ounce soda until I get fat and die, I need to be able to have that choice. Just my opinion.

Not just your opinion. It is the opinion of the founding fathers as well.

Originally Posted by 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.